Because most marriages include a voluntary agreement to limit sexual activity exclusively to one's spouse.
No they dont. it is ASSUMED and not written out clearly.
Of course it is assumed. You don't solemnly swear to help with the dishes or take out the garbage either.
When people announce their intent to spend the rest of their lives together, it is a given that they be considerate of each others' needs and desires and be willing to make compromises when their partners' needs or desires conflict with their own.
"Do you, dave, promise to not have sex with other people even though your wife permits it?" I dont remember those words at any wedding....
You are glossing over the most important part. Most marriages do not fall into the "even though your wife permits it" category and most people are at least uncomfortable with the idea of their spouses having other sexual partners.
If both you and your spouse are OK with extra-marital sex and are open and honest with each other about it, more power to you. In that case there are no trust issues involved. The "cheating" part is when one party knows that their spouse will disapprove (or worse) and therefore tries to keep the affair secret.
And, I can't find it, there was a study that showed most people can read the analog time faces faster. IIRC, it has to do with seeing the digital numbers, interpreting them, and it requires extra thought.
Come back to me in 30 years when you have Alzheimer's while I'm still sharp due to the regular brain exercise I get each time I glance at my digital watch.
Come to think of it, maybe the reason that you cannot find that study is an early manifestation of grey matter atrophy. Therefore, I urge you to hasten and get yourself one of these to slow down your brain degeneration.
When you are hacking into and deleting a murder victim's voice mails, thus hindering an investigation, and bribing the cops for evidence? Then you've gone way past reporting the news into making it. Personally i hope that just because they close the doors won't stop the investigation and every single one who bribed or hacked gets a nice long jail term.
What people seem to be glossing over is not that the journalists bribed police but that police took bribes from journalists.
Unfortunately, while some NotW people may (possibly) be scolded for their actions, it's business as usual for the police. Worst case, if the shitstorm is large enough, there will be an "internal investigation" and some of the the bribe takers will be rewarded with extra paid vacations.
We're getting into a moral/ethical grey area here. Although I'm not directly against the use of drugs like pot, I see a huge potential for abuse and don't believe it should be legal.
We're getting into a moral/ethical grey area here. Although I'm not directly against you being allowed to speak your opinion, I see a huge potential for abuse and don't believe it should be legal.
This beautifully illustrates why there should be some punishment for this type of behavior. He's obviously ignoring all prior art and forcing an already overloaded system to deal with this crap. Fine him.
You seem to forget that laws are written by lawyers and special interest groups for the sole benefit of lawyers and special interest groups.
America is still, to this day, trying to shake off centuries of puritan tradition. But we're doing it. Each generation is a bit more socially sane than the last one.
I beg to differ.
It is not socially sane to prosecute teens that send pictures of their nude bodies to each other. It is not socially sane to be forced to live under a bridge for the rest of your life because you took a leak in a public place. It is not socially sane to criminalize stick figures. It is not socially sane to send people to PMITA prisons for browsing the wrong sites or "possessing" the wrong literature. Come to think of it, it is not socially sane to even have (private, for-profit) "PMITA" prisons. It is not socially sane to fill those prisons with non-violent people that decided to put the wrong substances in their bodies. And speaking of prisons, it is not socially sane to have the highest incarceration rate in the world by a significant margin. It is not socially sane to have an extra-judiciary detention center. It is not socially sane to use torture, including "extraordinary renditions" and waterboarding. It is not socially sane to torture and abuse prisoners in a country you invaded (under false pretenses). It is not socially sane to have "free speech zones". It is not socially sane to have a "constitution free area" that encompasses almost 2/3 of your population. It is not socially sane to irradiate and grope people in airports.
Need I go on?
How exactly is this generation socially saner than the previous one?
I'm sure that my grandchildren will look at me and say "you guys were still doing WHAT to -insert social group here- in your day? Wow what were you thinking?" and they'll probably be right.
More likely your grandchildren will consider you to be lucky to have lived in a time when you still had some rights and freedoms left.
What does it mean for the IPPOLIT and its derivatives, which were banned from most competitions and ratings after Rajlich accused them of being Rybka clones?
the complete phrase is "I could care less, but it's not worth the effort." later shortened to "I couldn't care less." both are valid, one just assumes you're familiar with the phrase.
Not only that the expression significantly postdates "couldn't care less", it explicitly references it.
i'm going to adopt your high standards and declare that anyone that doesn't know that is, and always will be, a fucktard.
And you will be wrong, unless you can show some evidence for your claim.
another phrase you are probably embarrassing yourself by saying: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." samuel johnson's actual quote is simply, "hell is paved with good intentions." some fucktard added the "road to" part.
As long as doesn't attribute the saying to Johnson, John Ray or Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, I'd say the usage is valid. It has a somewhat different meaning than the "correct" quote but it is close and legitimate in its own right.
irregardless means the same thing as regardless (and yes, it is a word) inflammable means the same thing as flammable
It is true that language evolves, but usually that evolution is beneficial -- it allows people to express new concepts in a more meaningful, precise or concise manner (e.g., "goggle it" is preferable to "look it up on the world wide web"). Incorrect usage that becomes common among those that do not know better does not make the language better.
because you are the type of person whose brain throws a blue screen of death when the syntax used requires the listener to evaluate the meaning, or in other words, listen
Consider using the "regular" forms for the benefit of people who are not as familiar with the English language like you are.
Take me for example, English is my third language. While my brain does not throw a BSOD on encountering an incorrect phrase or bad grammar, it does raise an interrupt, and the resulting context switch (while I figure out what the person meant) interferes with the smooth flow of reading or conversation.
In other words: we took the trouble to learn your language so you can understand us; please do us the courtesy of using it correctly so we'll have less trouble understanding you.
Who are Police? They are people. Some people do wrong things sometimes. Thus, some police break the law. Making it illegal for others to record the police only makes illegal behavior by corrupt police easier.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard that Geological processes have pretty relaxed schedules.
Of course it is assumed. You don't solemnly swear to help with the dishes or take out the garbage either.
When people announce their intent to spend the rest of their lives together, it is a given that they be considerate of each others' needs and desires and be willing to make compromises when their partners' needs or desires conflict with their own.
You are glossing over the most important part. Most marriages do not fall into the "even though your wife permits it" category and most people are at least uncomfortable with the idea of their spouses having other sexual partners.
If both you and your spouse are OK with extra-marital sex and are open and honest with each other about it, more power to you. In that case there are no trust issues involved. The "cheating" part is when one party knows that their spouse will disapprove (or worse) and therefore tries to keep the affair secret.
Come back to me in 30 years when you have Alzheimer's while I'm still sharp due to the regular brain exercise I get each time I glance at my digital watch.
Come to think of it, maybe the reason that you cannot find that study is an early manifestation of grey matter atrophy.
Therefore, I urge you to hasten and get yourself one of these to slow down your brain degeneration.
I thought it was the TSA's job.
What people seem to be glossing over is not that the journalists bribed police but that police took bribes from journalists.
Unfortunately, while some NotW people may (possibly) be scolded for their actions, it's business as usual for the police. Worst case, if the shitstorm is large enough, there will be an "internal investigation" and some of the the bribe takers will be rewarded with extra paid vacations.
Sorry, friend, out of mod points at the moment. Please accept a thumbs up instead.
We're getting into a moral/ethical grey area here. Although I'm not directly against you being allowed to speak your opinion, I see a huge potential for abuse and don't believe it should be legal.
You seem to forget that laws are written by lawyers and special interest groups for the sole benefit of lawyers and special interest groups.
I beg to differ.
It is not socially sane to prosecute teens that send pictures of their nude bodies to each other.
It is not socially sane to be forced to live under a bridge for the rest of your life because you took a leak in a public place.
It is not socially sane to criminalize stick figures.
It is not socially sane to send people to PMITA prisons for browsing the wrong sites or "possessing" the wrong literature.
Come to think of it, it is not socially sane to even have (private, for-profit) "PMITA" prisons.
It is not socially sane to fill those prisons with non-violent people that decided to put the wrong substances in their bodies.
And speaking of prisons, it is not socially sane to have the highest incarceration rate in the world by a significant margin.
It is not socially sane to have an extra-judiciary detention center.
It is not socially sane to use torture, including "extraordinary renditions" and waterboarding.
It is not socially sane to torture and abuse prisoners in a country you invaded (under false pretenses).
It is not socially sane to have "free speech zones".
It is not socially sane to have a "constitution free area" that encompasses almost 2/3 of your population.
It is not socially sane to irradiate and grope people in airports.
Need I go on?
How exactly is this generation socially saner than the previous one?
More likely your grandchildren will consider you to be lucky to have lived in a time when you still had some rights and freedoms left.
I believe that the slashdotter add-on for FF doesn't work well with the classic discussion
If the video (or any other) doesn't play, change the "http" to "https" and then tell us what you think of Google.
Roundabouts are not about replacing traffic lights, they're about replacing all-way stops.
So basically you are saying that it is not a Windows issue and USB is unsafe by design.
Not if you claim to be 100% unique.
What does it mean for the IPPOLIT and its derivatives, which were banned from most competitions and ratings after Rajlich accused them of being Rybka clones?
Houdini is rated higher than Rybka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_engine#Ratings
So is there a safe way to find out what does a USB device advertise itself as before authorizing it to the system?
The Oglaf 404 page is second only to the secret page (which is fukken awesome!)
Because lead stops X-rays and paper doesn't?
You don't get to be the president of AMERICA (sic) if you have any shame left.
Apologies for messing the blockquote tags.
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/q/q/b/1/y/u/do-not-feed-the-trolls-md.png
Start submitting reviews and comments to the main game-review sites.
That's the general idea, yes.